Maybe you would benefit from making less assumptions about how much attention people have paid.
Then why imply I was giving you lessons on nature? Why the need for a defense?
Once again, maybe you would benefit from making less assumptions.
You said it, not me. And you assume I live in the city.
Did I assume where you live?
Well all is related but difference exists for it’s own reason, it contributes to evolution and change, difference > new > change > advancement. It adds onto the expansion.
Why just the American people? Are you not from America?
I am not quite sure if there is a universal goal, everyone is different, every perspective is different from the other. You see it is rigged, there does not need to be a goal because no matter what anyone does they will still be experiencing something, this adds to the collection and expansion.
It is best to think of it as photos, everyone takes different photos of different things in their own lives. Always different. We expand the universe just by existing… Good or bad experience does not matter, only to the individual perhaps.
[/quote]
Are people different? Are perspectives different? The movie spoiler applies to everyone, as does a national border, or any policy legislated by any government; if people were different would formula still apply?
What about forums themselves? Why is the forum reality never the tv reality, or the EU parliament reality, or the novel reality - people in movies or novels barely ever speak like they do in real life on forums.
I don’t believe in difference. So the cast of Friday the 13th 2009 are identical to the current members of the EU parliament, but the ability of either requires the absence of reflection: maybe uniformity is truth, except that it’s being true requires the inability to be aware of it.
Well when you said city you kind of did. Oregon is definitely nature filled.
shellytroken,
Context being: Background, environment, framework, setting, or situation surrounding an event or occurrence.
I absolutely love nature. I both find myself and lose myself in it. It leads me to balance and harmony when I am feeling their opposites.
Is it possible that when someone experiences frustration with nature, it is because of their own inner nature which might be frustrating them in those moments because of some outer influence having to do with their life?
I may not be understanding what you’re speaking about since I don’t think I’ve experienced that albeit of course I’ve experienced inconvenience at times because of the weather which I think is part of nature.
Don’t we take those walks in nature and sit in nature because we realize the power and the influence that it holds over us?
Everything about nature we can also discover in ourselves. We are as much like nature (the trees, woods, et cetera as nature is like our selves…even like the grass which blows in the wind.
I sit before a tree and its still presence is capable of reminding me to “be” still. A tree that is in such perfect (subjective thinking perhaps) harmony and symmetry reminds me of balance and to try to “be” in harmony and balance.
A tree which is just “there” surrounded by everything reminds me to also be “there” /to remember that I am also a part of everything even though at the same time I stand alone and enjoy that.
I sometimes try to visualize the swirling atoms within a tree. We are the same swirling atoms, full of energy
The leaves on the trees which are so blowing in the wind and yet refuse to detach until that final moment when they finally let go and allow their individual selves to be blown wherever to reminds me of how important it is to detach.
Nature is one thing more than many other things which can teach us about who we really are. We can also see others - peer into their natures - by observing nature itself.
Our inner natures are akin to the world’s outer natures - they are so much alike.
I’m a tree hugger.
At the same time, nature is also simply to be appreciated for itself, not for what it can give us - just as we are too.
A generalised statement that you inferred was directed specifically at you doesn’t make for any sort of assumption (true or false) on my side.
All is same, but there are some differences, it is the driver for expanding. Without the illusion you would not be able to think fresh or come up with unique ideas. All things come from the same source though.
You would agree that the movie spoiler applies to any postman, or to any member of Cleopatra’s court? And that the reason that Terminator 2 is a good sequel applies to the servants of an aristocratic estate in the nineteenth century?
If these links are true, yet are not meant to be referenced, as a pattern, how does one justify pattern in the first place that it itself requires justification? If a nation existing needed justifying, why should the nation have bias over the servants in the 19th century being linked to Terminator 2?
Would a desert be enjoyable or is it just lush green trees that are enjoyable?
It could be enjoyable. People like the sun too, the lack of weather, etc. I grew up in Nevada and wouldn’t mind being in Egypt.
I am not sure what you are asking. Justification itself is the same as the rest, an idea. They’re all ideas and share it as a single source.
In my experience it has been very enjoyable and in fact more enjoyable than the greenery of a forest.
I might enjoy the desert in the evening. Cooler I think and the silence might be so intense.
Silence is …no words for it in the desert. Yes? No?
Do you think that art applies to the desert? Homo sapiens are defined as creators of art, but is it reality that art is just context? An idea that intrigues me is that anywhere that’s a place of art can be a desert, or an airport, or an office building.
I agree it is context, beauty in the eye of the beholder.
All is art as all is nature. Nature is the epitome of art. Life, existing, all of it interweaves.
Is it a contradiction, that anything can be art? I don’t think this could ever be true, therefore if nature is a process of trial and error, art is not trial and error.
What do you think it could mean, that art is always perfection?
Art isn’t restricted, it is subjective and can be anything. Perfection is subjective as well. It is up to the conscious perspective to determine whether or not it is art or if they value it as perfect.